Does Man Really Have a Soul?

[HelpMe]

the infusion of the driver with the car creating a 'soul' is likened to the spirit fusing with the body creating a soul.

she can also correct me if i'm wrong.but as she said, the man is a soul.the soul technically is not a different being from the body.*points to end of post #83*

 

[No*s]

hebrew > greek.

sry

Thank you for the witty response. Now, answer the following questions that you didn't answer.

Do you read, write, or speak ancient Hebrew? It's a simple "yes" or "no" and quite important to any person saying "the word originally meant such and such."

If you do not know Hebrew, how do you know what the word originally meant?

Rather than saying "hebrew > greek" please answer those questions. Why should anyone listen to you if you won't answer them?

 

[HelpMe]

how fluent must one be able to carry on in order to meet your criteria for acceptable?

i was being serious, i'm not fond of greek.

 

[cardero]

No*s writes:Have you ever read the Republic? If you haven't it includes a story about the souls of men choosing their next lives, including choosing animals.

This is what I believe as well but I also would like to extend the choices for reincarnation into other realms/planets/existences that we are not familiar with. A common misconception about soul reincarnation is that you have to reincarnate as a choice of a physical entity on earth (insects, plants, animals, humans) when this simply is not the case. There are a myriad of choices to incarnate into. I also do not believe in mandatory karma but I do believe that if an individual entity chooses to “make-good” as a PURPOSE for their next life then they have the right to do so.

 

[Ronald]

Thank you for the witty response. Now, answer the following questions that you didn't answer.

Do you read, write, or speak ancient Hebrew? It's a simple "yes" or "no" and quite important to any person saying "the word originally meant such and such."

If you do not know Hebrew, how do you know what the word originally meant?

Rather than saying "hebrew > greek" please answer those questions. Why should anyone listen to you if you won't answer them?

Have you not heard of the "Ruach ha Kodesh"?

Some have it and others don't. Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.

Hardly Immortal, in a religious way! Secular! Does it matter? They just happened! :162:

 

[Paraprakrti]

I don't follow that only humans have a soul. If it lives it IS a soul. The soul is the life principle. Without the life principle all we have is inanimate matter.

 

[No*s]

Have you not heard of the "Ruach ha Kodesh"?

Some have it and others don't. Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall

Hardly Immortal, in a religious way! Secular! Does it matter? They just happened! :162:

I don't read Hebrew, so no, I do not know the phrase. That's why you'll notice a near-total absence of references to it.

Here is what I assert:

The translaters of the Hebrew Bible into Greek invariably used "Hades" for "Sheol." That's pretty standard knowledge on the LXX. From this, I assert that the concept behind "Hades" and the one behind "Sheol" are similar, if not basically the same (Excluding the pagan god portion of it, and a few other like extremeties).

I really don't know what you are driving at, though. Maybe you should explain it more. I don't believe I've said a thing in contradiction with this verse.

 

[No*s]

This is what I believe as well but I also would like to extend the choices for reincarnation into other realms/planets/existences that we are not familiar with. A common misconception about soul reincarnation is that you have to reincarnate as a choice of a physical entity on earth (insects, plants, animals, humans) when this simply is not the case. There are a myriad of choices to incarnate into. I also do not believe in mandatory karma but I do believe that if an individual entity chooses to *make-good* as a PURPOSE for their next life then they have the right to do so.

OK.

That means I read you correctly. From the context, it's abundantly obvious that I'm not too Platonic here, but I'm glad I know that I read you aright.

Why do you feel this way? I'd be interested in learning that, because I haven't talked to many reincarnationists, and the answers always vary.

 

[Ronald]

I don't read Hebrew, so no, I do not know the phrase. That's why you'll notice a near-total absence of references to it.

Here is what I assert:

The translaters of the Hebrew Bible into Greek invariably used "Hades" for "Sheol." That's pretty standard knowledge on the LXX. From this, I assert that the concept behind "Hades" and the one behind "Sheol" are similar, if not basically the same (Excluding the pagan god portion of it, and a few other like extremeties).

I really don't know what you are driving at, though. Maybe you should explain it more. I don't believe I've said a thing in contradiction with this verse.

Quote No*
If you do not know Hebrew, how do you know what the word originally meant?

Ruach ha Kodesh/Holy Spirit

In Hebrew there was no holding pen for lost souls(Greek Hell) so there is no hell in Hebrew, no Immortal soul. "The soul that sins shall die."
In contradiction, you are implying an immortal soul or a holding pen for lost souls.
Ecc.12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (the only part of man that goes to heaven upon death, not just "good" spirit, but all):tsk:

 

[No*s]

Quote No*
If you do not know Hebrew, how do you know what the word originally meant?

I told you. On one hand, I can judge by what is consistently used to translate it. That Hades is consistently used to interpret Sheol is a known fact. Why didn't they ever use oudenia or the like? The obvious answer is that Jews in the 3rd Century BC thought they were very close in meaning.

On the other, I can observe things that are described. God is present in Hades/Sheol. Samuel is summoned. In the book of I Enoch (a good Jewish book before Christ), one finds unalterable assertions for it, which consequently, is not limited to the righteous but shows a special state of lower existence for the wicked. II Maccabees (another good Jewish book before Christ and part of my Bible) contains an account of a sacrifice on behalf of the dead. All of these include or require a "holding pen."

Those are just some of the facts that I can draw on. Translations can enable us to cull one fact from another. If the broad facts I can learn from translation contradict what someone says the word "really" means, then I can safely say that they are wrong.

Now, do you know Hebrew and how well?

Ruach ha Kodesh/Holy Spirit

In Hebrew there was no holding pen for lost souls(Greek Hell) so there is no hell in Hebrew, no Immortal soul. "The soul that sins shall die."

Greek Hell is Tartarus, not Hades. The terms are very distinct, and their definition is not vague. You now know that there is a distinction, so do not confuse them. If you require evidence of this, I can, and I will, supply it. This evidence includes, lexical and instances of use.

I believe that you are peddling an interpretation here as a fact, and you have not proven it. In fact, you disagree with the LXX translators. Who should I trust, you or 3rd century BC Jews?

In contradiction, you are implying an immortal soul or a holding pen for lost souls.

I know what I mean with what I say. When I say that "death" does not equal annihilation. When I say "death" is a spiritual relationship with God. When I say I believe that Hades constitutes a shadowy existence that doesn't qualify as life. I think I have defined my terms pretty well.

I have defined it, and you have read the definition. Do not assert that you know what I say and believe better than I. If you can show that it is the logical conclusion by how I define the words, then I will not be insulted. However, if you try to make my words meet your definitions and try to tell *me* what I think and say, then you will understand that I will be very insulted.

Ecc.12:Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (the only part of man that goes to heaven upon death, not just "good" spirit, but all)

That is all fine and good. However, here's another couple of Bible quotes:

"And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree that is in th egarden thou may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--of it ye shall not eat, but in whatever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die." (Genesis 2.16-17

"And to Adam He said, Because thou has hearkened to the voice of they wife, and eaten of the tree concerning which I charged thee of it only not to eat--of that thou hast eaten, cursed is the ground in they labors, in pain shall thou eat of it all the days of they life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shall eat th eherb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat thy bread until thou return to the earth out of which thou were taken, for earth thou art and to earth thou shall return." (Gen. 3.17-19)

We both know that God didn't physically kill him that day. Instead, he physically died that day. Do you believe that God was wrong, that the Scripture is in error here, or do you believe the obvious conclusion of the passage: Adam died spiritually and later physically? As another cogent point, God talks about Adam dying and going to dust in the Genesis passage, and that death is separate from the spiritual death.

As you can see, I have every reason to doubt your claim at this point. With refrence to the LXX' translation I have demonstrated that the translators, in the 3rd century BC, held Sheol to be compatible with Hades. I have shown that pre-Christian literature includes a belief in what you call a "holding pen," and that of those I explicitly list, I Enoch includes it for the wicked explicitly. I have accomodated your use of Ecc. 12:7 with a parallel phrase in Genesis.

As such, you can no longer tell me that there is "no holding pen." I have proven otherwise, unless you can clearly show that my understanding in all instances is fundamentally wrong. So, can you make a systematic case, especially if it uses the Apocrypha and extra-biblical Jewish literature.

 

[mahayana]

If it's Ok to go back from discussions of what souls are like, the spirit world, etc...to the question of establishing whether they exist, I'll suggest another test in a second area.

( I know there are lots of people "channelling past lives" but most of this stuff is pretty silly. Like at one site, a hypnotized person was asked what year it was, and responded with a certain year BC. If they were really speaking as a person from that time they would not have used a dating system not invented yet. Or all the people claiming to be the reinarnation of famous people- what are the odds?)

Out-of-body experiences, if confirmed, would establish that something akin to the conscious mind can travel independently from the body. A simple scientific test would be to take people claiming to have such experiences into a room where objects had been placed on top of high cabinets, request that they float their spirit up near the ceiling and describe what the objects are. Would success in these experiments convince you that humans have a spirit? Does anyone know if this has been done before, or is it only rumored to have been done?

 

[cardero]

Mahayana writes: I know there are lots of people "channelling past lives" but most of this stuff is pretty silly. Like at one site, a hypnotized person was asked what year it was, and responded with a certain year BC. If they were really speaking as a person from that time they would not have used a dating system not invented yet. Or all the people claiming to be the reinarnation of famous people- what are the odds?)

There are many books written by a psychiatrist who stumbled over these experiences by accident. The psychiatrist is taking these past life experiences as a sort of way to heal people through their medical conditions (for example a patient suffering from migraines relives a past life where their life ended with a bullet through the head. Once the patient relives this, he awakes with no more migraines. (TRUE? I do not K(NOW). Interesting? Yeah.)

Mahayana writes: Out-of-body experiences, if confirmed, would establish that something akin to the conscious mind can travel independently from the body. A simple scientific test would be to take people claiming to have such experiences into a room where objects had been placed on top of high cabinets, request that they float their spirit up near the ceiling and describe what the objects are. Would success in these experiments convince you that humans have a spirit? Does anyone know if this has been done before, or is it only rumored to have been done?

This is called remote viewing and I heard it is being taken quite seriously by scientists and the military. (TRUE? I do not K(NOW). Interesting? Yeah.)

I think I just found my new signature.

 

[Ronald]

We both know that God didn't physically kill him that day. Instead, he physically died that day. Do you believe that God was wrong, that the Scripture is in error here, or do you believe the obvious conclusion of the passage: Adam died spiritually and later physically? As another cogent point, God talks about Adam dying and going to dust in the Genesis passage, and that death is separate from the spiritual death.

As you can see, I have every reason to doubt your claim at this point. With refrence to the LXX' translation I have demonstrated that the translators, in the 3rd century BC, held Sheol to be compatible with Hades. I have shown that pre-Christian literature includes a belief in what you call a "holding pen," and that of those I explicitly list, I Enoch includes it for the wicked explicitly. I have accomodated your use of Ecc. 12:7 with a parallel phrase in Genesis.

As such, you can no longer tell me that there is "no holding pen." I have proven otherwise, unless you can clearly show that my understanding in all instances is fundamentally wrong. So, can you make a systematic case, especially if it uses the Apocrypha and extra-biblical Jewish literature.

Another convinced Christian!
Your in Error ant, LXX! 4000 years from creation, and they add fairy tales to the Word of God. Ge 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Did Adam die? Yes Adam died! Did he die in that day of the Lord? Yes he did! Did he die with the piece of apple in his throat ? No he didn't!

When your LXX starts off without Hebrew interpretation, it starts off on the wrong foot(out of step), until they correct the misstep they stay out of step, all the way to the very end.

Correct the error, check out some good Hebrew scholar, or a scholar of Hebrew, you can see, if you are not convinced your source is perfect, that you are just a tiny bit off course. One degree for 2000 yrs. makes one mighty lost.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Out-of-body experiences, if confirmed, would establish that something akin to the conscious mind can travel independently from the body. A simple scientific test would be to take people claiming to have such experiences into a room where objects had been placed on top of high cabinets, request that they float their spirit up near the ceiling and describe what the objects are. Would success in these experiments convince you that humans have a spirit? Does anyone know if this has been done before, or is it only rumored to have been done?

I've been able to witness people describing things that they would have no way of knowing by using this method. (And they weren't 'reading' anyone or anything. There was no one there to read who would have known what they were talking about.) What they had seen was later confirmed by a person with no interest in the proceedings.

I like your idea for the experiment. I'm working on astral projection myself, and this will help me determine whether or not it's suceeding. Thanks!

 

[mahayana]

Perhaps you could describe how one works on astral projection, FIH. My interest in out-of-body phenomenon started with my first wife telling me that she floated out of her body, looked down at it sleeping, then flew around observing. This was/is? a common dream sequence for her. The closest I've ever experienced was dreaming that I was walking a foot or so above the ground.

One also sees (on TV and in movies) people looking down on their bodies in hospital beds as they die. Our culture has taken the idea as a possibility. The scientist would not accept that it could be possible to think, see, or hear without the appropriate body parts (brain structures, eye structures, inner ear structures, etc). How can you see, if you are invisible? I suppose the same criticism would apply to past life memories. How could a complicated physical pattern stored in neurons (like language) be passed to an embryo's developing brain?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Perhaps you could describe how one works on astral projection, FIH. My interest in out-of-body phenomenon started with my first wife telling me that she floated out of her body, looked down at it sleeping, then flew around observing. This was/is? a common dream sequence for her. The closest I've ever experienced was dreaming that I was walking a foot or so above the ground.

Sure, I'd be more than happy to! (I'd better do it through PM, though, lest I carry us all off topic.) It certainly sounds like both you and your wife's experiences were out of body experiences. (People, me included, frequently experience these things as dreams.)

 

[mahayana]

Thanks for the offer, Feathers. I'd be happy to correspond in PMs.

The subject here is whether we really have souls, and some might think that what I've been suggesting has more to do with mental phenomena. Freud (one of the germinal thinkers of the science of psychology) was quite interested in dreams. I'm not sure he took on the question of whether dreams can contain new information which couldn't have come from the experiences of the dreamer.

I asked how a person could see things from the perspective of flying, know things (like language) that they never studied, unless there was some explanation like spirits or spirit guides. Telepathy is another thing that doesn't make much scientific sense, but even dogs have it. Instinctual behavior ( like migration for birds and butterflies, many other examples), also seem to depend on transmission of ideas fully formed to individuals without the experience of learning. Perhaps there's a physical explanation for these things, does anyone have a theory?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

mahayana-- Before we can formulate a theory on people knowing languages they have never studied and dogs having telepathy, we need to prove that there are people who know languages they have never studied and that dogs have telepathy.

I saw a hypnotist perform a while back and saw firsthand how people in altered states of mind can speak gibberish in what appears to be some kind of foreign language. I think stories of people speaking in tongues, when not total fabrications, are more indicative of the power of the human imagination than of past lives.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think I would have to agree with the Spinkmiester on this one.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

mahayana-- Before we can formulate a theory on people knowing languages they have never studied and dogs having telepathy, we need to prove that there are people who know languages they have never studied and that dogs have telepathy.

I agree with this completely. It gets confusing, though, trying to differentiate between coincidence and reality. If, for example, a person was able to see what was in another room without any indication as to what it was, some people would shout 'telepathy!'. Others would shout 'coincidence!' Because there's such a vast range of things people can do, still others might say that he was subconciously or conciously 'reading' someone or something. I respect all those opinions. However, I think there's a great many people who believe in things esoteric who've realized that, for every case study they cite in which something valid did or appeared to happen, another person will cite a case study which points to people knowing how to fool people or some other idiotic and mean thing we humans do to each other. I think they realize, in their hearts, that these other people simply don't want to hear these things. And I respect that knowledge, too.